Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
While the Latin term itself originates in scholasticism, it reflects the Aristotelian view of man as a creature distinguished by a rational principle.In the Nicomachean Ethics I.13, Aristotle states that the human being has a rational principle (Greek: λόγον ἔχον), on top of the nutritive life shared with plants, and the instinctual life shared with other animals, i. e., the ability ...
His arguments for abstaining from eating animals are informed by the goal of being free from the sensible realm and the body [10] by living a life as close as possible to the intelligible realm. [8] By Porphyry's logic, the consumption of animals is an unnecessary luxury and a gratification of the body and therefore, of the irrational aspect of ...
Nevertheless, he denied animals rationality and moral equality. "Plants are created for the sake of animals," he wrote, "and animals for the sake of men." [8] Aristotle argued that humans were the "masters" in his created hierarchical structure based upon their rational powers. [7]
Animal symbolicum ("symbol-making" or "symbolizing animal") is a definition for humans proposed by the German neo-Kantian philosopher Ernst Cassirer. The tradition since Aristotle has defined a human being as animal rationale (a rational animal ).
The idea of the conceptual that I mean to be invoking is to be understood in close connection with the idea of rationality, in the sense that is in play in the traditional separation of mature human beings, as rational animals, from the rest of the animal kingdom. Conceptual capacities are capacities that belong to their subject’s rationality.
A related counterargument from Roderick Long is that a being can obtain moral agency by developing a rational capacity, and from there on has full moral agency even if this capacity is lost or diminished: That is why a cow has no rights, though a human being reduced to the mental level of a cow does have them.
On the one hand, one hypothesis proposes that some non-human animals have complex cognitive processes which allow them to attribute mental states to other individuals, sometimes called "mind-reading" while another proposes that non-human animals lack these skills and depend on more simple learning processes such as associative learning; [4] or ...
A common argument for animalism is known as the thinking-animal argument. It asserts the following: [3] A person that occupies a given space also has a Homo sapiens animal occupying the same space. The Homo sapiens animal is thinking. The person occupying the space is thinking. Therefore, a human person is also a human animal.